Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229006937
CITATIONS READS
182 765
4 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:736743 (2004). Abbreviations: LD, laser diffraction; PIDS, polarization intensity dif-
Soil Science Society of America ferential of scattered light; PSD, particle-size distribution; RI, refrac-
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA tive index.
736
ESHEL ET AL.: LASER DIFFRACTION AND PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION 737
the material tested. The Mie theory thus offers an exact on a sieve of a given mesh size depends on the particles
solution to the scattering of light from a homogeneous shape and the probability of the particle to assume,
sphere (but not from an irregularly shaped particle). during the time allotted for sieving, an orientation rela-
The resultant PSD computed by either the Fraunhofer tive to the sieve that will allow it to pass through. Such
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
diffraction or the Mie theory is a volume (rather than an orientation exists for particles whose smallest cross-
mass) based size distribution. Early generation LD in- section can clear through the sieves aperture. The net
struments for PSD determination suffered from a size outcome of the nonsphericity of soil particles is, as a
detection limit 0.5 m. In addition, they employed rule, that a coarser population is retained by the sieve
mainly the Fraunhofer diffraction, which is inaccurate than the actual population of particles with apparent
for particles smaller than d 10 (where is wave- diameters corresponding to the sieve size (Mathews,
length) (Bayvel and Jones, 1981; de Boer et al., 1987); 1991). Exceptions to this rule may occur, for example,
for the BeckmanCoulter LS-230 it would be particles when the soil sample contains a significant quantity of
7.5 m in diameter. In newer LD apparati, the lower very flat disk-shaped particles with a diameter exceeding
detection limit was extended to approximately 0.04 m. that of the sieve aperture.
Main advantages of the LD technique for PSD deter- In sedimentation-based techniques the particle shape
minations include: short time of analysis (510 min per has the following effect. The most stable position of a
sample), high repeatability, small size of sample needed settling nonspherical particle is the one in which the
(1 g), and a wide range of size fractions into which maximum cross-sectional area is perpendicular to the
the entire range of particle sizes can be divided. The direction of motion (Krumbein, 1942). This position
latter point is of particular importance because the avail- increases the expected particle drag, which, in turn, re-
ability of a continuous PSD, rather than an arbitrary sults in a decrease in the settling velocity (Mathews,
division of the particles among a limited number of size 1991). Thus, the fine size fraction is overestimated.
fractions (as is obtained by the pipette method), enables When wet sieving through a sieve with a 53-m effec-
a more detailed data analysis and a simultaneous use tive opening and sedimentation are combined for the
of the same data sets for classification of the analyzed determination of PSD (as is the case in the pipette
samples under different national classification systems. method), an overestimation of the silt plus clay fraction
Furthermore, PSD is used for the prediction of soil at the expense of the sand fraction usually occurs during
hydraulic properties (e.g., Bloeman, 1980; Arya and the sieving stage. Thereafter, during the sedimentation
Paris, 1981). Because porosity and pore-size distribution stage, the clay fraction is overestimated at the expense
in soils or other porous media are key parameters in
of the silt fraction.
the calculation of hydraulic properties, direct determi-
An additional source of error in the sedimentation-
nation of PSD in terms of volume percentage by LD,
based techniques is the heterogeneity in the particles
rather than in terms of mass percentage as is the case
density. For soil and earth materials, particle density is
in the pipette method, eliminates the need to adopt the
commonly taken as 2.65 Mg m3. Yet, Clifton et al.
rough approximation of a single value for soil particle
(1999) found that the density of marsh sediment parti-
density in the prediction process.
cles can vary between 1.66 and 2.99 Mg m3. The uncer-
Main disadvantages are high cost of the LD instru-
tainty regarding the actual density of the particles may
ment and insufficient confidence in the results due to
strongly bias the size distribution in the sedimentation
the relatively low number of LD analyses of soils as
analysis.
compared with the enormous number of analyses per-
Unlike PSDs derived from sedimentation-based tech-
formed by the classical methods. Entire texture-based
classifications of soils are dependent on correlations niques, a PSD measured by the LD method is indepen-
that were established between soil properties and PSDs dent of the density of the particles. On the other hand,
derived by classical methods. Correlations between LD derived PSD is also affected by the shape of the
PSDs obtained by LD and soil properties are yet to particles. The projected cross-sectional area of a non-
be established. spherical particle averaged over all the particles possi-
ble orientations relative to the direction of the beam is
larger than that of a sphere with an equal volume
The Effects of Nonsphericity and Uncertainty (Jonasz, 1991). This may lead to the assignment of a
in Participle Density on Particle-Size measured particle to a larger size fraction than it actually
Distribution Analysis belongs to on the basis of its apparent radius; that is, a
Portrayal of irregularly shaped particles, such as those shift of the PSD toward its coarser fractions. It should
found in soils, requires a complex three-dimensional be borne in mind however that for particles with an
description. For simplicity and ease of analysis, particles equivalent spherical diameter 0.1 m, the projected
in soils are presented as an equivalent spherical parti- cross-sectional area becomes nearly the same as that of
cles, which allows the use of a single length (apparent a sphere of equal volume (Jonasz, 1987).
diameter) as the descriptor. This simplification leads to In the present study, we performed a critical evalua-
a dependence of the obtained PSD on the method used tion of the LD method and the combined sievepipette
for its determination (Mathews, 1991). method for determining PSD of soils and assessed (i)
In the case of sieving, for example, the likelihood of whether a functional relationship existed between the
a nonspherical particle to pass through or be retained two types of methods for determining PSD, and (ii)
738 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, MAYJUNE 2004
the suitability of LD as a routine procedure for PSD the Fraunhofer model is not accurate enough for the determi-
determination in soil science. nation of the clay-size fraction (Bayvel and Jones, 1981; de
Boer et al., 1987), calculations based on the Mie theory were
MATERIALS AND METHODS used. It should be borne in mind that the Mie theory applies
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Table 1. The texture classes and the Great Group classification of the soils used for the study.
Soil no. Great group Texture class Soil no. Great group Texture class
1 Endoaquerts Clay 22 Xerofluvents Silt loam
2 Endoaquerts Clay 23 Durixeralfs Loam
3 Haplodurids Clay 24 Durixeralfs Loam
4 Haploxerolls Clay 25 Endoaqualfs Loam
5 Haploxerolls Clay 26 Haploxerolls Loam
6 Haploxeralfs Silty clay 27 Palehumults Loam
7 Natrargids Silty clay 28 Palexeralfs Loam
8 Palexeralfs Silty clay 29 Palexeralfs Loam
9 Haploxeralfs Silty clay loam 30 Argixerolls Loam
10 Haploxeralfs Silty clay loam 31 Argixerolls Sandy loam
11 Natrixeralfs Silty clay loam 32 Argixerolls Sandy loam
12 Torrifluvents Silty clay loam 33 Durixeralfs Sandy loam
13 Torrifluvents Silty clay loam 34 Haplocalcids Sandy loam
14 Argixerolls Clay loam 35 Haploxeralfs Sandy loam
15 Haploxeralfs Clay loam 36 Haploxerolls Sandy loam
16 Haploxerolls Clay loam 37 Palehumults Sandy loam
17 Rhodoxeralfs Clay loam 38 Torrifluvents Sandy loam
18 Haploxeralfs Sandy clay loam 39 Xerochrepts Sandy loam
19 Haplargids Sandy clay loam 40 Xerorthents Sandy loam
20 Haploxeralfs Silt loam 41 Haploxeralfs Sand
21 Haploxeralfs Silt loam 42 Torrifluvents Sand
Soils No. 2, 22, and 35 are the Clear Lake, Yolo, and Auberry soils respectively.
Based on the pipette analysis.
ESHEL ET AL.: LASER DIFFRACTION AND PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION 739
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2. The real part of the refractive index (nr) and particle
density of common soil minerals. Unless stated otherwise, data
Refractive Index were taken from the Handbook of chemistry and physics (CRC
Press, 2002).
When the Mie theory is used, choosing the correct
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Table 3. Particle-size distribution (PSD) measured by laser diffraction, calculated PSD using the equations in Fig. 4, and the relative
error of the calculated values (i.e., the difference between measured and predicted values expressed as the percentage of the
measured value).
Measured Predicted Relative error
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Soil no. Sand Silt Clay Sand Silt Clay Sand Silt Clay
Volume % %
1 36.0 50.1 13.9 25.4 49.5 18.9 29.6 1.2 35.9
2 9.6 58.4 32.0 18.9 52.9 20.3 96.5 9.4 36.4
3 31.3 57.6 11.1 17.2 51.3 22.2 45.2 11.0 100.4
4 22.3 58.3 19.4 18.7 53.4 20.3 16.2 8.4 4.5
5 17.0 61.9 21.1 28.2 40.1 21.3 65.6 35.2 1.0
6 9.0 66.5 24.5 18.4 54.9 19.5 104.0 17.4 20.5
7 22.6 62.1 15.3 21.8 55.3 17.6 3.7 11.0 15.2
8 34.5 54.9 10.6 22.1 56.8 15.9 36.0 3.5 50.3
9 14.7 71.8 13.5 14.2 64.9 13.4 3.6 9.6 0.9
10 10.6 77.3 12.1 17.3 64.2 12.7 63.2 17.0 4.8
11 28.7 57.9 13.4 22.8 58.7 14.1 20.7 1.4 5.0
12 21.9 57.4 20.7 19.3 58.7 16.1 11.9 2.3 22.2
13 15.8 71.3 12.9 18.6 59.3 16.3 17.5 16.9 26.7
14 27.8 59.4 12.8 28.4 54.6 14.3 2.2 8.1 11.5
15 17.7 67.6 14.7 28.9 55.1 13.7 63.2 18.5 6.9
16 26.0 57.7 16.3 27.2 54.8 14.8 4.5 5.0 9.5
17 21.8 58.6 19.6 32.4 52.6 13.4 48.4 10.2 31.8
18 36.6 51.4 12.0 42.9 46.6 11.7 17.3 9.4 2.3
19 49.4 47.9 2.7 56.1 43.4 6.4 13.6 9.4 137.2
20 31.1 58.6 10.6 19.6 66.8 8.9 37.1 14.0 16.1
21 37.3 55.2 7.6 31.2 61.3 7.9 16.5 11.2 4.1
22 22.4 63.9 13.7 26.7 62.6 9.1 19.1 2.1 33.9
23 44.8 46.3 8.9 38.2 57.1 7.4 14.7 23.3 16.4
24 42.4 50.5 7.1 42.7 52.2 8.4 0.8 3.4 18.3
25 38.8 52.9 8.3 39.3 56.9 7.2 1.2 7.6 13.9
26 40.9 47.8 11.3 39.7 54.0 8.8 3.0 13.0 21.9
27 56.0 36.8 7.2 46.1 51.6 6.9 17.7 40.0 3.9
28 31.7 57.0 11.3 40.2 53.9 8.5 26.9 5.4 24.4
29 49.0 41.4 9.6 42.1 54.9 7.0 14.0 32.6 27.6
30 50.9 41.2 8.9 45.0 50.1 8.5 11.6 21.6 4.0
31 36.7 55.4 7.9 53.0 46.8 6.2 44.4 15.5 21.3
32 44.2 53.3 2.5 53.1 46.8 6.2 20.1 12.0 144.2
33 47.8 44.5 7.8 49.4 47.3 7.9 3.4 6.4 1.4
34 87.2 10.1 2.7 66.8 19.5 4.4 23.4 93.4 62.8
35 65.6 30.1 4.3 63.0 35.5 6.0 3.9 18.1 38.1
36 45.2 45.7 9.2 50.8 45.2 8.3 12.4 1.0 9.6
37 60.2 35.9 4.0 59.6 43.6 5.1 1.0 21.5 30.0
38 60.8 35.7 3.5 61.4 39.9 5.1 0.9 11.6 47.3
39 49 45.9 5.2 47.0 52.3 6.1 4.1 14.0 17.7
40 52.4 43.6 4.0 62.3 38.0 5.4 19.0 12.9 35.8
41 84.8 13.2 2.0 74.6 21.4 3.4 12.0 62.7 67.0
42 74.8 22.7 2.6 77.0 11.5 3.0 2.9 49.4 17.4
relative error, that is the absolute value of the difference ples. These authors suggested that regression equations
between measured and calculated LD values (based on derived by reduced major axis analysis could be used
the equation presented in Fig. 4 for each size class) to define the relation between PSDs derived by the
expressed as percentage of the measured value, for the sievepipette method and by LD for a given set of soils.
sand, silt, and clay fractions (Table 3). The results indi- They did, however, emphasize that there is no unique
cated that even if the relative error was small for one relationship between the PSDs derived by LD and by
size fraction, as was the case for the clay fraction in soils the sievepipette method. It was concluded that this
5, 10, 15, and 27, the relative error was still high for relationship appears to be most strongly affected by
one or both of the other fractions (Table 3). These variations in mineralogy and morphology over the vari-
observations strongly suggest that in individual studies ous particle-size classes (Beuselinck et al., 1998). Vitton
LD data could at times be satisfactorily correlated with and Sadler (1997), who compared PSDs obtained by the
pipette data for a given size fraction, but no universal sedimentation-based hydrometer procedure with PSDs
relation between PSD obtained by LD and that obtained obtained by LD, reported a satisfactory agreement be-
by the pipette method can be formulated for the entire tween results derived by the two methods, with the
PSD range. agreement improving as mica content in the soils de-
Our observations were also in disagreement with other creased. Muggler et al. (1997) also reported reasonable
studies. For instance, Beuselinck et al. (1998) noted agreement in PSDs obtained by the pipette and the LD
that LD measurements do not always underestimate methods for soils containing 60% clay.
the magnitude of the clay fraction as compared with To further examine the differences in PSD between
analyses performed by the pipette procedure. Their the pipette and the LD methods, we examined the PSD
study showed that while LD did underestimate the size using the LD of the silt clay (53 m) and clay
of the clay fraction in silty soil samples, it overestimated fractions (2 m) of the Auberry, Yolo, and Clear Lake
the content of clay-sized particles in milled quartz sam- soils that were isolated by wet sieving and the pipette
742 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, MAYJUNE 2004
Table 4. Volume percentage determined by laser diffraction of error is that no consistent relationship between PSDs
samples from the soils investigated that were initially isolated derived by LD and PSDs derived by sedimentation
by sieving (particles 53 m) and by the pipette (particles 2
m). Number after represents one standard deviation. methods can be formulated. This is so, despite some
recurring features of the differences in the derived PSDs
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Volume percentage
(e.g., a lower clay fraction produced by the LD method).
Soil 53 m 2 m Finally, it should also be born in mind that disparities
Auberry 91.9 0.14 52.5 0.21 between measured PSDs may also occur when different
Yolo 96.0 0.07 58.7 0.42 LD apparati are used. Loizeau et al. (1994), for example,
Clear Lake 98.3 0.14 60.9 1.48
reported a discrepancy between PSDs obtained by two
LD instruments for particles 10 m. This discrepancy
method, respectively (Table 4). In all three soils, after was probably the result of using two instruments with
sieving, the volume percentage of the 53-m fraction different detection limits. Not only may LD instruments
was 100%, thus indicating, as discussed above, that differ in their detection systems, but the optical model
during the sieving part of the combined sievingpipette employed for PSD determination may also be different.
method, particles 53 m passed through the sieve and In some studies the Fraunhofer diffraction model was
were thus no longer considered as sand particles. Con- used (e.g., Loizeau et al., 1994; Konert and Vanden-
cerning the clay-size fraction (2 m), only approxi- berghe, 1997; Beuselinck et al., 1998), while in others
mately 57% by volume of the samples were determined the Mie theory was used (e.g., Buurman et al., 1997;
to be within the clay-size fraction, while approximately Muggler et al., 1997). Differences inherent in the two
43% of the particles were in the size fraction 2 m optical models, and especially the fact that the Fraun-
(Table 4). These results are similar to those of Clifton hofer model has difficulties in calculating the magnitude
et al. (1999), who analyzed marine sediments and found of particles in the size range of the laser beam wave-
that approximately 35% of the clay-size particles ob- length or smaller, may affect the outcome of the PSD
tained by settling were considered coarser than 2 m determination for a given sample.
by a LD determination. These results further highlight
the consistent lack of agreement regarding the clay frac-
tion between the sedimentation-based pipette method
CONCLUSIONS
and the LD technique. We compared the PSD between the pipette and the
The varying and at time conflicting results appearing LD method for 42 soils. For the purpose of conversion
in the literature with regard to the comparability of of data from one type of measurement to the other, the
PSDs obtained by the pipettehydrometer method to relationship between the pipette data and the LD data
those obtained by LD, may originate from two sources. for the different size fractions was less then satisfactory.
First, there are biases, or sources of error, inherent in In addition, the relationship between the pipette- and
the sedimentation-based and in the LD methods. These the LD-derived clay fraction in our study differed from
sources of error, which were discussed earlier, dictate those appearing in the literature. Furthermore, in many
predictable differences between the PSDs measured by of the soils that exhibited good agreement between mea-
the two methods. Second, the LD analysis is indepen- sured and calculated LD values for the clay fraction,
dent of the particles density and accordingly produces poor agreement between measured and calculated val-
PSDs expressed in volume percentage. In the sedimen- ues existed for the silt or sand fraction.
tation-based methods the determined particle size is It should be realized that there is no method for
dependent on the particles density, which in the case PSD determination of soil materials that can serve as
of soil is approximated by an assumed mean value. The a universal yardstick, because all available methods,
PSD is expressed in this case in terms of mass percent- whether classic (e.g., pipette) or new (e.g., LD), suffer
age. The deviation of the true density of the particle from some inherent flaws. The choice between methods
from the assumed mean density is a source of error that depends, therefore, on the balance between the pros
is specific to the analyzed soil. The mere assumption of and cons of each. Advantages of the LD procedure over
a single value for particle density in soils, as is presumed the pipette method include (i) need for only a small
for the purpose of size determinations by the pipette sample, (ii) short time of analysis, and (iii) a continuous
method, is an obvious source of error. Particle density PSD curve.
of soil components may vary between soils and among Compared with the pipette method, the LD proce-
the different size fractions in a given soil (e.g., Table 2). dure suffers from two main disadvantages. One is the
The difference between a PSD obtained by LD and high cost of the instrumentation. However, with the
the one obtained by sedimentation for a given soil is increase in cost of labor and the constant pressure for
dependent in a complex fashion on the properties of greater reliability, reproducibility, and speed of analysis,
the soil and especially on its mineralogy (that deter- the attractiveness of LD apparati is expected to grow.
mines, e.g., the RI and the density) and morphology The second disadvantage is the lack of a database that
(that affects the shape, or deviation from sphericity) correlates LD-derived PSDs with soil properties, simi-
of the soil particles. The overall consequence of the lar to the very extensive database existing for pipette-
predictable, procedure-dependent sources of error in- derived PSDs. Nonetheless, should the LD method be-
herent in the PSD determinations by the two methods come more accepted in the soil science community, the
and the harder to estimate soil-dependent sources of well needed database will gradually be established.
ESHEL ET AL.: LASER DIFFRACTION AND PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION 743
We believe that the LD method and the resultant eter: A simplified method for routine textural analysis and a sensi-
tivity test of measurement parameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:
expression of PSD based on volume is a valid method 10041007.
even though it does not provide data that are fully com- Gee, G.W., and J.W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. p. 383411.
parable with data derived by classical methods. Because In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron.
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
of the speed, small sample size, and range of output Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
options available with laser diffraction, we foresee the Janitzky, P. 1986. Particle-size analysis. p. 1115. In M.J. Singer and
P. Janitzky (ed.) Field and laboratory procedures used in a soil
method becoming more widely used for PSD. chronosequence study. USGS Bull. 1684. U. S. Gov. Print. Office,
Washington, DC.
Jonasz, M. 1987. Nonsphericity of suspended marine particles and its
REFERENCES influence on light scattering. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32:10591065.
Allen, T. 1981. Particle size measurement. 3rd ed. Chapman and Hall, Jonasz, M. 1991. Size, shape, composition and structure of micropar-
New York. ticles from light scattering. p. 143162. In J.P.M. Syvitske (ed.)
Arya, L.M., and J.F. Paris. 1981. A physicoempirical model to predict Principles, methods, and application of particle size analysis. Cam-
the soil moisture characteristics from particle-size distribution and bridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.
bulk density data. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:10231030. Konert, M., and J. Vandenberghe. 1997. Comparison of laser grain
Bayvel, L.P., and A.R. Jones. 1981. Electromagnetic scattering and size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: A solution for the
its applications. Applied Science, London. underestimation of clay fraction. Sedimentology 44:523535.
Beckman Coulter. 1999. Some physical constants used in particle Krumbein, W.C. 1942. Settling velocity and flume behavior of non-
characterization. Beckman Coulter, Miami, FL. spherical particles. Trans. Am. Geophysical Union 41:621633.
Beuselinck, L., G. Govers, J. Poesen, and G. Degraer. 1998. Grain-size Levy, G.J., M. Agassi, H.J.C. Smith, and R. Stern. 1993. Microaggreg-
analysis laser diffractometry: Comparison with the sieve-pipette ate stability of kaoliniitc and illitic soils determined by ultrasonic
method. Catena 32:193208. energy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:803808.
Bloeman, G.W. 1980. Calculation of hydraulic conductivities of soils Liu, T.K., R.T. Odell, W.C. Etter, and T.H. Thornburn. 1966. Compar-
from texture and organic matter content. Z. Pflanzenernaehr. Bo- ison of clay contents determined by hydrometer and pipette meth-
denkd. 143:581605. ods using reduced major axis analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 30:
Buurman, P., Th. Pape, and C.C. Muggler. 1997. Laser grain-size 665669.
determination in soil genetic studies. 1. Practical problems. Soil Loizeau, J.L., D. Arbouille, S. Santiago, and J.P. Vernet. 1994. Evalua-
Sci. 162:211218. tion of a wide range laser diffraction grain size analyzer for use
with sediments. Sedimentology 41:353361.
Chappell, A. 1998. Dispersing sandy soil for the measurement of
Loveland, P.J., and W.R. Whalley. 2001. Particle size analysis. p. 281
particle size distribution using optical laser diffraction. Catena 31:
314. In Soil and environmental analysis, physical methods. K.A.
271281.
Smith and C.E. Mullins (ed.). Marcel Dekker Inc. New York.
Clifton, J., P. Mcdonald, A. Plater, and F. Oldfield. 1999. An investiga- Matthews, M.D. 1991. The effect of grain shape and density on the size
tion into the efficiency of particle size separation using Stokes measurement. p. 2233. In Principles, methods, and applications
Law. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms 24:725730. of particle size analysis. J.P.M. Syvitski (ed.) Cambridge Univ.
Cooper, L.R., R.L. Haverland, D.M. Vendricks, and W.G. Knisel. Press. Cambridge.
1984. Microtac particle-size analyzer: An alternative particle-size Muggler, C.C., Th. Pape, and P. Buurman. 1997. Laser grain-size
determination method for sediment and soils. Soil Sci. 138:138146. determination in soil genetic studies. 2. Clay content, clay formation
Coulter Co. 1994. Coulter LS series, product manual. Coulter Corp., and aggregation in some Brazilian soils. Soil Sci. 162:219228.
Miami, FL. Vitton, S.J., and L.Y. Sadler. 1997. Particle-size analysis of soils using
CRC Press. 2002. Handbook of chemistry and physics. 83rd ed. CRC laser light scattering and x-ray absorption techniques. Geotech.
Press, Boca Raton FL. Test. J. 20:6373.
de Boer, G.B., C. de Weerd, D. Thoenes, and H.W. Goossens. 1987. Walter, N.F., G.R. Hallberg, and T.S. Fenton. 1978. Particle size analy-
Laser diffraction spectrometry: Fraunhofer versus Mie scattering. sis by the Iowa State Univ. Soil Survey Lab. p. 6174. In G.R.
Particle Charac. 4:1419. Hallberg (ed.) Standard procedures for evaluation of quaternary
Gee, G.W., and J.W. Bauder. 1979. Particle-size analysis by hydrom- materials in Iowa. Iowa Geological Survey, Iowa City.